Pages

Wednesday, 23 July 2014

Mass
Effect 3 may be the most disappointing game I’ve ever played. It’s
certainly not the worst
game I’ve ever played, but it’s certainly not a very good one
either. Mass Effect 3 is, of course, the final act of a trilogy. The
original Mass Effect, despite its flaws, is one of my all time
favourite games. Its sequel, Mass Effect 2, was superior in some
areas to the original (notably combat), yet weaker in many others
(plot, exploration).

The first two ME games were a combination of TPS and RPG, but the
role-playing aspect of the ME games was never about levels or stats.
It was about Shepard. Shepard, male or female, was the role assumed
by the player. Shepard had an independent persona, but one that was
shaped by the choices of the player within his or her role. The ME
games featured a branching narrative that reacted to the input of the
player. Certainly the framework had its limitations, but it was
flexible enough to warrant multiple runs of each title in order to
experience the differing consequences based on your unique choices.

This was the primary draw of the ME games for myself and I’m sure
many other players. The RP stat mechanics of the original were not
particularly complex or engaging and were largely excised from the
franchise in ME2. The TPS element, whilst certainly improved in ME2,
still wasn’t anything particularly special. The gameplay of the ME
series was solid and it did the job, but the reason I played both
games so many times was because I wanted to see the impact of my
actions and choices on the developing narrative. ME was essentially a
‘choose your own adventure’ game, set within an engaging vision
of the future of Earth and humanity’s role in a multi-species
community, populated with some of the most interesting, memorable and
well developed characters you’ll encounter.

Out of the first two games, I’d personally rate ME1 above ME2 (it
had a great 80s sci-fi style aesthetic and sound), but there’s
really not a lot between them. The overall plot of ME2 was rather
weak compared to the first game, but ME2 was less about the mission
on which your character embarks, and more about the people you take
with you. After completing ME2 I was certainly looking forward to the
final game in the trilogy, and the developers continued to support
and expand ME2 with some excellent DLC. But then, The Arrival DLC was
released, and that’s where things started to go horribly wrong.

The Arrival was intended to ‘bridge the gap’ between ME2 &
ME3. It was essentially a dull, one corridor shooting gallery,
punctuated by a few cut-scenes with practically zero player input.
There is only one ‘choice’ presented within the DLC, but this
actually has zero impact on how the DLC plays out, or indeed, as we
later discover, in ME3 itself. It was a worrying sign of things to
come, but I understood the intention – it allowed the developers to
establish a baseline for all players from which they could launch the
story of Mass Effect 3.

Except it sort of didn’t.

Mass
Effect 3 has an utterly terrible opening, and it’s something the
game never really recovers from. With so much written about the
game’s ending, little has been said about just how bad the opening
section is. In fact, I’d say it’s almost as equally awful as the
ending. Everything
is wrong with it, and it sadly sets the tone for the rest of the
game. Now, I could write pages and pages taking apart the opening
section and explaining just how bad it is in excruciating detail (in
fact I did, but it ran to about seven pages of expletive filled
ranting), but instead I’m going to focus on my biggest issue with
it. An issue that is, I feel, the most serious problem with ME3, one
that’s not been as addressed as it should given all the focus on
the terrible ending. And that issue is Shepard.

As I’ve said, the ME games are really about Shepard, about the
player tailoring their own Shepard persona over the course of the
series and therefore directing the flow of the narrative. This was
the strongest component of Mass Effect, one that enabled me to
forgive the rather mediocre gameplay, weak plots and shallow RPG
mechanics. Shepard was our character.

But in ME3, right from the very start, it’s clear that Shepard is
no longer the player’s character, and the story is no longer ours
to influence. Shepard is now a character independent of the player,
taking actions and making key decisions without player input.
Conversation options are few and far between in ME3, and Shepard
babbles on for long stretches, forcing the player to simply sit and
watch. In the previous games, the player would take an active role in
shaping how these conversations play out. Now they are little more
than barely interactive cut-scenes.

I understand that in the previous games, many conversations only
provided the illusion of player direction and ultimately the outcome
was often the same. But removing pretty much all player input and
reducing what was once multiple options to investigate and question
down to what is often only two basic responses was a terrible idea.
Sometimes, the illusion of control is better than nothing at all.

On top of that, the developers added a ham-fisted psychological
element, as Shepard is haunted with visions of a young boy he saw
die. Once again, this sets Shepard as a character no longer shaped by
the player. I find it hard to believe, for example, that a full
renegade Shepard would give much of a damn.

And this is the real issue with how the opening plays out, and from
that point on, the rest of the game. Right from the very start, I
didn’t understand why my Shepard was where he was or why he
was there. It simply didn’t make sense for the character I’d
shaped across the previous two games. Shepard was no longer a
character shaped by the players, but an independent character shaped
by the choices of the developers and the needs of the plot, which the
player now had even less ability to influence than before.

Now, you can argue that Shepard was never our character as
such and it’s not our place to say what that character should or
shouldn’t do in a given situation. But when the previous two games
in the series allow you to build and shape that character in your own
way (obviously along certain constrained paths) it’s extremely
strange that the final game in the trilogy completely disregards this
approach.

And before the title even appears on the screen, it’s clear Mass
Effect has now transformed fully into a cut-scene heavy, linear third
person shooter with a few tacked on upgrade elements. Shepard, our
Shepard, who we’d shaped across two previous games, no longer
existed. This was no longer a story we were a part of, but one we
just had to sit back and watch.

So what about the actual gameplay of ME3? Well, the shooting
mechanics of the ME series always did the job, but they were never
fantastic. However, they didn’t need to be the strong point of the
series. ME3, ultimately, is just a pretty mediocre run and gun TPS.
It’s a very basic cover shooter, with the bizarre choice of
assigning nearly every combat movement action to a single key –
cover, sprint, vault – which is just plain awkward. Shooting isn’t
particularly satisfying, with enemies just soaking up fire until they
fall. Enemy AI is just cover and shoot or charge. There’s very
little in the way of challenge. Weapons are okay, but the biotic
powers of the previous games feel weak and even worse than in ME2.

So the gameplay is all rather uninspiring and dull. What else does
the game do? Well, the plot revolves around Shepard assembling a
multi-species fleet to take back Earth. I’m not even going to get
into how stupid the plot is. Anyway...you have ‘critical’
missions which advance the plot, but aside from a couple of notable
exceptions (Rannoch and Tuchanka), these are largely linear, dull and
forgettable affairs. There are a couple of more interesting side
missions involving previous characters, and then a few more bonus
missions which are entirely ripped out of the game’s multiplayer
horde mode. Wow, seriously? Then you have a few dozen ‘side
missions’ which amount to talking to someone, flying to a planet,
hitting a button to retrieve the item, and then returning it. That’s
it. Why did they even bother? In between this you get to spend time
on your ship or the Citadel. You can talk with your crew but this
time conversations just play out without any player involvement, you
just sit and listen.

Oh yeah, your crew. For some reason someone also thought it would be
a great idea to introduce quite a few new characters in ME3. Which I
wouldn’t really have a problem with, except some of them get as
much or even more dialogue and screen time than characters we’ve
known since the first ME. And those are the people I really care
about. I want more interaction with those characters, and those from
ME2. Not with Kai ‘I PWN U SHEPARD’ Leng, or Steeeeeve ‘boo
hoo, my husband died, WANT TO F**K?’ Cortez.

Oh, and in case we’ve forgotten, the ending is possibly the worst
thing ever conceived by man. I mean seriously, who gave the green
light on this abomination? Ignoring all the major logical
inconsistency, let’s just get to the heart of why the ending was so
terrible – choices didn’t matter. Regardless of which ending you
chose, there was no variation, no sense that anything you had done
meant a thing. None of the choices you made across the first two
games, or even in ME3 felt worth a damn. The entire ending feels self
contained, completely separate to everything in the entire trilogy
which had zero influence on how it played out. The Extended Cut DLC
did give the characters some sense of closure at least, but it still
failed to address the primary issues relating to the ridiculous and
nonsensical crucible/hologram kid.

I felt bad about buying ME3 on release because of the DLC fiasco. I
didn’t even have high expectations for the game, but I was hoping
to be somewhat pleasantly surprised. But instead, ME3 was massively
disappointing across all areas, not only the ending. It’s a game
that, aside from a couple of notable moments, barely scratches
average. It’s a game that feels shallow in content, rushed, with a
lack of thought or care. It’s not often I wish I had never played a
game because it sullied my experience of an entire franchise. But
that’s exactly what ME3 did. It really is that bad.

Thursday, 17 July 2014

Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons was another Steam sale purchase. It’s
a third person adventure/puzzle game with some platform elements and
an emphasis on character and narrative. Two young brothers embark on
a quest to save their dying father. At least I think he’s dying.
He’s probably dying.

All the characters speak in a fictional ‘sims’ style language, so
the story is really told through the way characters interact, their
body language, tone of voice and expression. It’s all very nicely
done and works well at conveying exactly what the player needs to
know without directly explaining things.

The lack of any sort of hand holding also extends to the gameplay.
You’re told how to control each brother and from then on it’s
entirely in your own hands. That said, the game is so simple and easy
that it’s not like you’d need prompting every time you hit a
puzzle, but it’s nice for a change for a game to trust the player
to figure things out on their own.

The controls are simple. One stick for each brother’s movement, and
a trigger each to interact. It’s a little awkward at first
coordinating each brother independently, especially if you’re used
to using one stick for camera movement, but you soon get the hang of
it. The game plays out like a co-op for someone without any friends,
one in which you control both characters simultaneously. You’ll
need both brothers working together to progress, and the way they
interact with each other and the environments is very cleverly
integrated into the platform and puzzle segments.

Unfortunately, as neat as these sections are, they’re simply not at
all challenging, and the mechanics never expand or grow more complex
as the game progresses. You’re introduced to maybe 2 or 3 new ways
of interacting over the course of the game, but generally, everything
you’ll learn within the opening prologue and first chapter is
pretty much it. This is a real shame, because the action/puzzle
segments are very nicely designed and fun (if easy) to complete.

Graphically, Brothers is a very nice looking game, with some lovely,
highly detailed environments, many of which have small, interactive
elements for the player to explore. The setting is also good, a lush,
fantasy landscape with all sorts of wonderful creatures to encounter
– some friendly, some not so much. The game also does a great job
of keeping the environments varied from one location to the next, and
it’s all quite tightly paced.

That said, the game is easily completed in about three hours and has
pretty much zero replay value. And whilst I enjoyed the puzzle and
platform segments (and even a couple of fun little boss fights,
believe it or not) it feels like the majority of the gameplay
consists of simply pressing forward on both control sticks, watching
as the brothers run along a (very lovely) linear path from one
cut-scene to the next. You’ll hit a neat puzzle here and there
along the way, but these are usually completed in a couple of
seconds, and then it’s back to pressing down the sticks.

I hate to say it, but I got a little bored playing Brothers. As much
as the two characters can interact with the environment and each
other, a lot of the time I felt rather disconnected from the game.
Like it was an adventure I was watching, rather than participating
in. There’s one moment you find some goats to ride up a mountain.
It seemed like fun, until I realised the brothers raced along two set
paths and all I had to do was hold down both sticks. Hell, a couple
of times during a ‘the brothers slide down something’ moment, I
just let go of the control sticks entirely to see if it would make
any difference. It didn’t, of course, the game just played itself
without me.

And because I found the gameplay not particularly engaging, the
narrative never really had as much impact as perhaps it should. Like
I said, this wasn’t a story I felt I was involved in, or had any
real influence in, I was just along for the ride.

But Brothers is still a pretty neat little game. It’s got a great
setting, a lovely art style and graphics and some genuinely clever
puzzles combined with a unique and interesting gameplay mechanic.
It’s just a shame that the gameplay never increases in complexity
or depth as the game progresses. If you’re looking for something a
little different, something you can sit down and play one rainy
afternoon then it’s certainly worth checking out.

Tuesday, 15 July 2014

Saturday, 12 July 2014

Spec Ops: The Line is a third person shooter I picked up in the
recent Steam sale. It’s one I’ve had my eye on for some time.
It’s gained something of a reputation as an underrated game with a
unique setting and a strong narrative. In terms of its gameplay, I
don’t think anyone has spoken very highly of it, but it’s a game
I’ve seen people recommend based on setting and story alone. And
it’s not hard to see why.

The game is set in Dubai, now a dead city ravaged by constant, deadly
sand storms. You play as Captain Walker, sent into Dubai to search for
survivors and a missing battalion of American troops. The setting
itself is a nice choice, although sadly, it’s only something of a
backdrop to the environments. It doesn’t feel like the game takes
much advantage of the setting in terms of levels, nor in terms of
gameplay. There are a few windows you can shoot out to drop sand on
people, but that’s about it. Graphically, it’s okay. It does the
job. It has some nice effects here and there. I can’t say much more
than that. The music is okay too.

So what about the story? Is it as good as I’ve heard? Well, no,
although it is certainly better than you might expect from a game
like this. The story of Spec Ops, as Walker travels through Dubai, is
fairly well paced and takes a decent stab at what it’s trying to do. I
don’t want to really go into detail with this because honestly,
the narrative is the only real reason you’d want to play this game,
and it’s not something I want to spoil. What I will say is that
it’s not predictable. It’s a story that will keep you guessing
right up until the end. So I have to give it credit for that.

But as much as I appreciate what the narrative was trying to do, I
don’t think it quite works in practice. There are certain moments
in the game completely out of the player’s control and as a result,
the consequences never have the impact you feel that they should. To
give a more specific example without spoiling too much, there’s a
moment when you’re firing on soldiers and some civilians are
killed. It’s meant to be quite harrowing, not just for Walker, but
for the player too, when they realise they’ve fired on the wrong
target. The problem is, I hadn’t fired on the target. I thought the
target looked odd and avoided it. Of course, the game has to progress
so in the end it fired on them for me. And this is why a disconnect
between gameplay and narrative can cause all sorts of problems.

The impact of the moment was lost on me because it was out of my
control. And there are several moments in the game that feel much the
same. You can argue that this is a linear story but that’s not
quite the case, as there are small ‘choices’ to make along the
way which can determine how certain things play out. Nothing major,
but enough. Spec Ops walks a strange middle ground in terms of the
narrative/gameplay connection, occasionally giving the player
difficult choices, but then taking choice away when it wants to rub
their noses in something. If there’s one thing Spec Ops doesn’t
do well, it’s subtlety.

And this, unfortunately, ties into the ridiculous, over the top
combat. So it’s a TPS, and not a very good one. You have a two
weapon carry limit with three grenade types. There’s not a great
selection of weapons, and enemy variety is crap. You have maybe 4-5
different guys based on the weapon they carry or the hat they wear.
You’ll see them a lot, as the game throws wave after tedious wave
of the buggers at you. Oh, and their AI is effectively brain dead.
Although they did seem to give them a nice auto-aim on higher
difficulties. It’s funny watching their laser sights track you even
when you’re hidden and moving behind cover. As you can imagine,
this all grows rather repetitive very quickly. And it certainly
doesn’t help that the actual combat system is so wonky.

You stick to cover when you don’t want to, and break away awkwardly
at the worst possible times. Moving in and out of cover can be hit
and miss, and some things apparently just don’t work as cover at
all, leaving you running against it like a twat waiting to get shot.
So yeah, the cover system, a rather key component of a cover-based
TPS, is a bit shit. Shooting isn’t really satisfying, not with the
limited enemy types or the sparse weapon selection. So what about the
level design? Small, linear and pretty crap, really. There’s very
little room to manoeuvre or flank, it’s really just a very long
whack-a-mole corridor. Like I said earlier, the actual setting
doesn’t have much influence in the levels. I hope you like burnt
out cars and randomly placed concrete barriers, because you’ll
spend most of the game humping one or the other. But if it wasn’t
already as dull and run of the mill as you’d expect, it throws in
plenty of mindless static turret shooting too. Yay!

So does it do anything new, or interesting with its gameplay? Well,
you can order your two squad mates to target specific enemies, but a
lot of the time it’s quicker to just take them out yourself.
Sometimes they can be useful in a fight, other times they just watch
an enemy run past them and shoot you in the back. I sort of liked the
characters though, but the more they f**ked up in combat, the more I
just wanted to be rid of them.

This isn’t going well, is it? It probably sounds like I’m taking
a real dump on Spec Ops, and maybe it doesn’t deserve that. And it
certainly should be commended for trying to do something different
with its setting and narrative. It takes some risks, it asks some
difficult questions of the player. I like that. But like I said, it’s
a flawed attempt, one which doesn’t quite have the impact it feels
it should. And towards the end, it leaves way too much open to
interpretation. You can get away with that to an extent, but there’s
so much about how things unfold in the last couple of chapters that
really don’t add up if you stop to think about them.

But would I recommend it, based on the strength of the narrative and
setting alone? I’d have to say no. It’s okay, but it doesn’t
make up for the exceptionally dull and repetitive gameplay. But was
that meant to be the point, as I’ve seen some people suggest? This
is war, war is hell and you really shouldn’t be having fun? Is the
game intentionally poking fun at over the top, modern day shooters?

But even if you’re trying to make a point, it doesn’t excuse the
painfully tedious and repetitive combat, terrible enemy AI, lack of
enemy and weapon variety and the dull, linear environments. I was
bored during most of the game, simply pressing through the awful
gameplay sections to continue the story. And when you consider that I
beat the game on the hardest available difficulty in under six hours,
that’s really saying something. I have to give Spec Ops credit for
its attempt to do something daring with its narrative (even if the attempt is flawed and ultimately fails) but that’s
pretty much the only nice thing I can say about it. Not recommended.

Wednesday, 9 July 2014

It’s about time for a writing update! So I’m still waiting to
hear back from a lot of publishers and in the meantime I’ve been
keeping busy with all sorts of stuff. No, not just video games. Other
stuff. So I haven’t had much time for my writing these last few
weeks. And when I have had the time, it’s mostly been all about
editing.

First up, we have WFTD, which I haven’t looked at in a year or so.
I’m doing an initial pass of the text and it’s actually in pretty
good shape so far. Hopefully it won’t need too much more work to
bring it up to scratch.

In addition to this, I’ve also been working on edits of my e-books.
There’s no substantial changes, it’s mostly just a polish and a
tweak. As soon as they’re ready I’ll be doing a free promotion on
Amazon.

And finally we have TSOTS, which I completed the first draft of
earlier this year. I’ve left it for a bit so I can come back to it
fresh and get to work on the changes. I don’t think it needs any
significant rewrites though, well, maybe one chapter does, but the
first draft came out pretty good in terms of structure and pace.

I’ve also been thinking of possible new stuff to write, but looking
over a lot of the ideas in my ‘ideas file’ most of them are quite
old and look a bit shit now. I think it’s time to compile a new
list of concepts. That’s always the fun part.

Sunday, 6 July 2014

I picked up Papers, Please in the recent Steam sale for a couple of
quid. It’s one of those games I’d heard a lot of positive things
about, without really knowing much about what it was
exactly. It’s described as a ‘Dystopian Document Thriller’. You
assume the role of an immigration officer at a border checkpoint.
Your job is to check the travel papers of those wishing to enter the
glorious country of Arstotzka.

Wait, what? A game about inspecting passports and travel permits?
That doesn’t exactly sound very compelling and yet, within only a
few minutes of play, I was already hooked. It’s best to think of it
as a puzzle game, and every arrival at your checkpoint booth is
another puzzle to solve. You have to inspect and verify every
document they require for entry into the country before deciding to
admit or deny their passage. It sounds simple enough, but as you
progress through the game’s story based campaign, the amount of
documents you have to cross-check and inspect continues to expand.

For example, someone wishing to work within the country requires a
passport, a work permit and a travel permit, all of which have to be
carefully cross-checked in terms of information such as Name and
Passport Number. You also have to check the information against what
the person tells you, such as duration of stay. Later in the campaign
you may also have to check additional documents, such as vaccination
certificates. And of course, there’s all the standard information
to inspect, such as the Passport Expiration Date and Issuing City.

But wait, there’s more! It’s also important to cross-check
personal information, such as photos, fingerprints, gender, height
and weight. Oh, and some documents may be forgeries, so you have to
look out for that, too.

As you can imagine, it’s easy to slip up and miss something if
you’re not paying close enough attention. It can be rather
frustrating checking several documents and admitting a person, only
to receive a citation because you missed a single, minor thing. And
of course, not all the same rules apply to the same people. Depending
on the circumstances, you may need to deny entry, confiscate
passports or perform body searches depending on the arrival’s
country of origin.

All this, in itself, is pretty good as a puzzle game, because it
continually adds new dimensions and elements to the core mechanics
which keeps you firmly on your toes. Of course, if you had all the
time you wanted to check each document it would be far too easy, so
the game puts you on a clock. As a lowly worker of Arstotzka, you get
paid a small amount for each valid person you process, whether you
admit or deny that person entry. The money you earn is important as
you need to pay for rent, heating, food and, depending on certain
conditions, things like medicine or a birthday present for your son.

So the game becomes a testing and compelling race to inspect as many
arrivals as possible in the time allotted. The faster and more
efficiently you work, the more money you can make. But if you work
too fast, you may begin to make mistakes. A couple will only receive
a warning, but any more and you’ll be fined. This can be a
punishing game at first. In my first couple of games I ran up debts
and was imprisoned, and then the rest of my family died due to
sickness because I couldn’t afford the medicine they required. Life
kind of sucks in glorious Arstotzka.

But even when you get the hang of things, you’re still struggling
to stay above water, and even a single mistake can really throw off
your concentration. Fines build up, and before you know it you have
to turn your heating off to try to save some money. And it’s these
story based elements that really elevates Papers, Please way beyond
its simple, but effective puzzle mechanics. Because as good as they
are, it’s the framework surrounding them that really makes it a
compelling and addictive experience, one you can become quite
emotionally invested in.

The story based campaign plays out over about 30 days (if you reach
the end, that is). And unlike so many big budget titles, Papers,
Please is one of those games that really does present the player with
interesting and meaningful choices, choices with real, serious
consequences. For example, after helping an anti-government
organisation get some of its people across the border, I received a
hefty payment. But, getting a little carried away with my wealth, I
upgraded our apartment and a suspicious neighbour took notice. The
next day I found myself hauled away and imprisoned. This was only one
of 20 possible end states. They may mostly be small variations, but
all come as a direct result of choices you make.

There are also a lot of smaller stories wrapped within the overall
narrative dealing with different people who pass through your
checkpoint, and these may have positive or negative consequences as
time goes on. Sometimes you’ll willingly let people through who may
not have the correct documents, perhaps because they bribed you more
than the inevitable fine, or perhaps because you genuinely feel sorry
for them.

Because many of them have a sob story to tell, but whether
any of them are true is up to you to decide. And as much as you may
want to help someone, you have your own family to consider. Letting
that person through without valid documents to reunite with their
family might be the ‘right’ thing to do, but not if it means you
can’t afford to feed your family due to the fine you’ll receive.

The game puts the player in a difficult moral situation. It forces
you to make choices that have real consequences further down the
line, many of them negative in terms of the outcome for you or your
family. In addition to the Story Mode, which I completed in about 8
hours (including a couple of restarts) there’s a customisable
‘Endless’ mode to really test your bureaucratic skills.

But this
is a game where the narrative really is an integral part of the
experience, interwoven with the gameplay in a clever and compelling
way. Overall, Papers, Please was a refreshing, unique and extremely
enjoyable experience. What it does, it does pretty much perfectly,
hitting every mark and achieving exactly what it sets out to do.
Highly recommended.